146 réponses à ce sujet

[Wereparrot]

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

I like the Current Council, All-Human council I dislike, most Humans are racist. That is no good, no way to treat Allies. There are good Humans. The Current is good, could be better. They should have where minor species join after awhile, not right away. I don't mind a Democracy, Democracy will work wonderful, good, even a Republic. Empire I too will like, Monarchy is okay but not Tyranny or anything is a no go for me.

I think that in any given state monarchy is preferable to democracy but it wouldn't work at a galactic level because every species would want one of their own as monarch. If a monarch was able to subdue all of Citadel space then it could work, but it would be difficult to acheive. Empires are usually carved out through conquest or settlement of inferior entities, the one exception I can think of at the moment being the English conquest of France (France being equal in status to England and a larger nation), and even then maintaining authority over France ultimately proved to be too much. In the same way, dominance of the galaxy by any one species will probably also prove to be short lived. 

[Wulfram]

General User wrote...

While the power of the Council races would still exist, the power of the Council would be, not broken, but diluted (did I mention how important a Charter is to this process?). That alone is enough to ensure the end of the current tyranny and see it replaced by a balance of power. Whether that structure eventually becomes anything tyrannical is something time will tell, but there's no inherent reason it need do so.

Once you add a veto, the power of the Council is broken.  Any real power will be exercised in an alternative venue, which isn't so crippled.

If you consider the Council system tyrannical, then any realistic system of relations between states would be tyrannical.  The Council, as far as I can see, exercises very little control compared to that exercised by earth powers over those within their sphere of influence.

[Malanek]

As multiple other have pointed out, you really need to define what role the council will play. It shouldn't really be a government at all, but rather a diplomatic organisation. It's role and the extent of their power is really a bit unclear in ME1 and 2.

[Bleachrude]

General User wrote...


The mechanism by which one great power (or combination thereof) can restrain another (or combination thereof) always has ultimately been, and always will ultimately be the same, no matter what system is in place: ie their military.

But isn't this worse than the status quo?

Right now, it is acknowledged that the Turians have the most powerful military but the asari are considered the most powerful race in mass effect.

Indeed, without the council (and we see this in the Council is lost option), piracy starts to rise as the Turians no longer feel obligated to patrol citadel space and thus presumably look after their own space first. The hanar and elcor are going to be at a distinct disadvantage since they will need to up their military commitment.

[General User]

Wulfram wrote...
Once you add a veto, the power of the Council is broken.  Any real power will be exercised in an alternative venue, which isn't so crippled.

In a way you're quite right.  The Council's power would be broken... unless a consensus can be built. 

The idea I have in mind isn't to make the powerful weak and the weak powerful.  I want reform, not revolution. 

And what I keep coming back to is this: there has to be a better way for the peoples of the galaxy to coexist than to subsume portions of their independence to a cabal of racist plutocrats and their mafia-style enforcer thugs.

Wulfram wrote...
If you consider the Council system tyrannical, then any realistic system of relations between states would be tyrannical.  The Council, as far as I can see, exercises very little control compared to that exercised by earth powers over those within their sphere of influence.

How do you mean?  Whether any given government is tyrannical, oppressive, or otherwise objectionable is between it and it's people, and will vary from polity to polity.  As long as they keep their problems "in house" then, as far as I'm concerned, there's no real need for others to become involved at all.

Bleachrude wrote...

General User wrote...
The
mechanism by which one great power (or combination thereof) can restrain another (or combination thereof) always has ultimately been, and always will ultimately be the same, no matter what system is in place: ie their military.

But isn't this worse than the status quo?

Not really, it's just the nature of realpolitik.  In other words, it IS the status quo and always will be no matter what.

Bleachrude wrote...
Right now, it is acknowledged that the Turians have the most powerful military but the asari are considered the most powerful race in mass effect.

Indeed, without the council (and we see this in the Council is lost option), piracy starts to rise as the Turians no longer feel obligated to patrol citadel space and thus presumably look after their own space first. The hanar and elcor are going to be at a distinct disadvantage since they will need to up their military commitment.

To my way of thinking, having the various Citadel associate powers go about relying on the turians, the Alliance, or anyone else for their own security is a sad and frankly dangerous state-of-affairs.  Nations and people relying on others for their own security is how independent nations lose their independence. 

So, for what I have in mind, a general military build-up by everybody is very much in order.

Modifié par General User, 25 novembre 2011 - 01:29 .

[General User]

[con't from above]

Besides, there's nothing written in stone that says that the Citadel Council, or what ever ends up replacing it, has to be the "end-all" and "be-all" of international associations in the galaxy.

If various smaller powers would like to make separate collective security or defensive arrangements with either each other or larger powers like one of the "Big Four" (Alliance, Hierarchy, Union, and UAR), I say: "more power to 'em."

For example: on Earth we have the UN, but we also have NATO.

Modifié par General User, 25 novembre 2011 - 01:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

For example: on Earth we have the UN, but we also have NATO.

The worst aspect of the Council is it's exclusivity. There is not other 'civilized' space.

[Dean_the_Young]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

^ Indeed.

The Council is not a government. It does not have monopoly on violence, nor does it even pretend to enforce it ("The terminus are beyond our jurisdiction...").

The Terminus is only beyond the Council's jurisdiction when it chooses it to be.

[Malanek]

iOnlySignIn wrote...
It is merely a formal agreement to cooperate between different governments. Like the NATO, or the Axis. It's not even like the UN, since it is exclusive rather than inclusive.

I actually think it is a lot closer to the UN (or at least the UN security council) than anything else. With the UN there are a small number of permanent members who have veto rights and are much more powerful than anyone else. So if you draw an analogy to the council in the ME world, Asari, Turians, Humans and Salarians are part of the security council while Volus, Hanarh and elcor are members and can be heard but without the same level of power.

Of course there are still differences. I'm unclear exactly what the council in ME is allowed to do, they seem to be able to order assassinations, impose trade embargoes and create galaxy wide laws without even any conferral apart from the 3 or 4 members. They also have their own armies rather than having to request forces and getting their member governments to vote on it.

[Malanek]

The Krogan would not be admitted to the UN either because they are not really a sovereign state but rather a collection of clans. Presumably the Quarians would have been kicked out of the UN for breaching the conditions but it certainly is a long a time to hold them accountable. It's definately not a parallel, but my main point was that the UN is not the inclusive eutopia it should be. I don't want to offend anyone who works for the UN, because there are a huge number of well meaning people, particularly on the humanitarian side, but ultimately it is a political body in which the most powerful rule.

[DPSSOC]

The current Council definitely needs some work, I kind of like the approach they claim to take when they put on their, "Not our problem" hats. Any galactic government would need a strict policy of not getting involved in strictly internal affairs. Civil Wars, political unrest, human/turian/asari/etc. rights violations, and so on within a species government would be outside the jurisdiction of said government. This would include the Council not getting involved in the Geth-Quarian conflict as it was an internal problem of the Quarian people.

This policy obviously wouldn't extend to the offering of humanitarian aid in the event of natural or artificial disasters; nor would it restrict individual governments from getting involved, just the over arching Galactic authority.

In matters involving more than one member species however such as the problems the Alliance have been having with the Batarians since the day we met them it would be the governments responsibility to step in as mediator in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If mediation is not possible one or both species (depending on the circumstances of the conflict) may have their membership revoked and the government may decide whether or not to get involved.

Also all species must be included in the government, I'm seeing representation by population but not sure if that's the best system when you have such disparity in birth rates and life spans as we encounter in ME. The major problem I have with the current system is that all the power is in the hands of 3(4) species. While I could see giving them special priveleges for the same reasons they now hold absolute authority you can't demand people follow your policies and not give them any ability to effect it.

[Sweawm]

So OK. One race couldn't conquer all the galaxy. If the Turians simply decided to wipe out all Alien life, would they succeed? Against the Council... no. The Krogan and the Rachni attempted to overrun the galaxy, and that ended badly.
The Geth. That subject slightly confuses me. If the Geth did have the resources, would they wipe out Citadel Space? And if they do have the resources, why don't they use them? If the Geth currently are fully supplied on their own territories resources for now, what if they ran out? One renegade Geth Fleet brought the united Council to it's knees (With the aide of a Reaper of course, but hey), what could the entire Geth do? Considering they have infinite manpower and are essentially immortal, the Geth could win any war.
If it wasn't for the Geth's weakness to Cyber Weapons, I bet the Reapers would be very concerned. As long as one Geth Program exists, the Collective lives on.

[Eustacia]

Robhuzz wrote...

Current status quo is just moronic with 3 races (4 after ME1) deciding everything that's going on in the galaxy with all the other races having to answer to them. I mean... Really? And the other races just go along with that? Wow...  Single species domination will never work since a single species does not have the military might to enforce their rule and I doubt the other species will simply go along with it.

I'd say create a joined council with representatives of every species willing to join, with the number of representatives for each race determined by their importance for maintaining the galactic economy and stability.

I can't see any other way working better then this.

[Wulfram]

General User wrote...

And what I keep coming back to is this: there has to be a better way for the peoples of the galaxy to coexist than to subsume portions of their independence to a cabal of racist plutocrats and their mafia-style enforcer thugs.

When this "cabal" has a far better record than any Human government or organisation, I have to doubt this.

How do you mean?  Whether any given government is tyrannical, oppressive, or otherwise objectionable is between it and it's people, and will vary from polity to polity.  As long as they keep their problems "in house" then, as far as I'm concerned, there's no real need for others to become involved at all.

But others will become involved.  The policies of the lesser powers will still be controlled by those of the greater.  All you're creating is an illusion of sovereignty to replace an illusion of galactic law.  And I don't see how that's worth risking a millennium of peace

[General User]

Much as Garrus did on Omega, you note a universal truth: the strong will always seek to control the weak. Such is the world galaxy we live play in. But I tell you now, there is a better way: the strong can protect the weak and build them up so they are strong. And, as humanity has proven, one needn't give up any liberties to do it.

A quote repeated so often that it is hard to track down an original source, is that peace is far more than the absence of war. What the Council has given the galaxy is not so much peace but (put charitably) stability. While stability might be well and good when describing a state of liberty and prosperity, when describing a state of institutionalized racism enforced by jack-booted thugs, stability becomes a pseudonym for oppression.

Modifié par General User, 25 novembre 2011 - 11:46 .

[Wulfram]

General User wrote...

Much as Garrus did on Omega, you note a universal truth: the strong will always seek to control the weak. Such is the world galaxy we live play in. But I tell you now, there is a better way: the strong can protect the weak and build them up so they are strong. And, as humanity has proven, one needn't give up any liberties to do it.

When has it proven this?  Certainly not in any history I've seen.

If the alien space bats started mind controlling everyone, this might be a valid possibility.

A quote repeated so often that it is hard to track down an original source, is that peace is far more than the absence of war. What the Council has given the galaxy is not so much peace but (put charitably) stability. While stability might be well and good when describing a state of liberty and prosperity, when describing a state of institutionalized racism enforced by jack-booted thugs, stability becomes a pseudonym for oppression.

The galaxy enjoys far more liberty and prosperity than has ever characterised earth for any meaningful period.

[General User]

Wulfram wrote...

General User wrote...

Much as Garrus did on Omega, you note a universal truth: the strong will always seek to control the weak. Such is the world galaxy we live play in. But I tell you now, there is a better way: the strong can protect the weak and build them up so they are strong. And, as humanity has proven, one needn't give up any liberties to do it.

When has it proven this?  Certainly not in any history I've seen.

The American have done it, at least twice.  In Europe and in Japan.

Wulfram wrote...

General User wrote...
A quote repeated so often that it is hard to track down an original source, is that peace is far more than the absence of war. What the Council has given the galaxy is not so much peace but (put charitably) stability. While stability might be well and good when describing a state of liberty and prosperity, when describing a state of institutionalized racism enforced by jack-booted thugs, stability becomes a pseudonym for oppression.

The galaxy enjoys far more liberty and prosperity than has ever characterised earth for any meaningful period.

Unless one is unfortunate enough to be born as a member of the wrong species.  Or on the wrong planet.  Or to dare to publish something that embarrasses the Council.  Or if one's existence is simply no longer politically convenient for the Council.

For most the Council system has done well enough in alot of ways, but there are those on the fringes, and those left behind.  Something Elizabeth III, Empress of Manticore said in an (obviously) different franchise could just as easily be applied to the Citadel Council, she said: "The [Citadel Council] for all it's past glories and high achievements, has become and appetite, a voracious [self-serving] hunger, and trillions of its citizens, living safe, satisfied, self-centered, and secure lives on its core worlds have no concept of what routinely happens to the weak and the helpless along its frontiers.

"It's time they found out."

[Wulfram]

General User wrote...

The American have done it, at least twice.  In Europe and in Japan.

It's intervened in wars where it sees this as it's national interest.  It's offered financial support when it seems like a way to expand it's influence.

It also feels free to destroy governments which offend it, and to use it's economic might to dictate internal policies of foreign powers.  I really don't see how it is preferable to the Council system.

Unless one is unfortunate enough to be born as a member of the wrong species.  Or on the wrong planet.  Or to dare to publish something that embarrasses the Council.  Or if one's existence is simply no longer politically convenient for the Council.

You're saying this doesn't apply to Earth?

For most the Council system has done well enough in alot of ways, but there are those on the fringes, and those left behind.  Something Elizabeth III, Empress of Manticore said in an (obviously) different franchise could just as easily be applied to the Citadel Council, she said: "The [Citadel Council] for all it's past glories and high achievements, has become and appetite, a voracious [self-serving] hunger, and trillions of its citizens, living safe, satisfied, self-centered, and secure lives on its core worlds have no concept of what routinely happens to the weak and the helpless along its frontiers.

"It's time they found out."

Manticoran imperialist propaganda aside, it sounds like your policy is to bring terror and death to trillions?

And I'm not really sure what your criticism of the Council reallly is.  You say that the people on the fringes are left behind, but what evidence do you have of this?  The Terminus systems have their problems, but they choose not to be part of Citadel space, and if the Council did not respect this then your charge of tyranny might not be misplaced.  As for the piracy and raids on human colonies in the Attican traverse, the blame fairly clearly falls on the Alliance's reckless policy of expansionism, which placed emphasis on placing their flag on as many worlds as possible rather than limiting themselves to what they secure.

[Goneaviking]

A couple of options, neither of which strike me as ideal but either of them would seem (at least to my tastes) as an improvement over the current status quo.

Creating a general assembly, a larger but less powerful council consisting of all the nations to determine the policies and direction that the member nations of the greater galactic community follow. With the higher council, composed of the most powerful races, dealing with specific areas like war.

Disband the council and let all the nations rule themselves as the see fit. Establish the Citadel as an independant nation run along democratic lines with an inflexible constitution protecting the rights of all species and assuring proportional representation in government and civil service.

[General User]

Wulfram wrote...
It's intervened in wars where it sees this as it's national interest.  It's offered financial support when it seems like a way to expand it's influence.

But of course!  All truly productive international relationships are built on the rock of enlightened self-interest.

Wulfram wrote...
It also feels free to destroy governments which offend it, and to use it's economic might to dictate internal policies of foreign powers.  I really don't see how it is preferable to the Council system.

[comment edited to avoid RW politics, PM me if your interested.]

Wulfram wrote...

Unless one is unfortunate enough to be born as a member of the wrong species.  Or on the wrong planet.  Or to dare to publish something that embarrasses the Council.  Or if one's existence is simply no longer politically convenient for the Council.

You're saying this doesn't apply to Earth?

Oh no, of course it applies to Earth and humans!  Indeed such is the very nature of political power, no matter who wields it.  So best to keep as much of it as possible at the lowest level possible.  If memory serves, this concept is central to the turian system of government.

Wulfram wrote...
Manticoran imperialist propaganda aside, it sounds like your policy is to bring terror and death to trillions?

HA!  Cordelia Ransom?  Is that you?

But no, I seek no death (no more than the military of any free nation must endure for its nation to remain free) and I seek no terror (no more than would normally accompany the lack of an "oh so enlightened" Council overseer to one acustomed to having such).

Freedom is scary, and seldom comes cheap.  But, oh, is it worth having.

Wulfram wrote...
And I'm not really sure what your criticism of the Council reallly is. 

My criticism of the Council is that it is an onerous institution that uses brutal and heinous methods to aggrandize itself and enforce a racial caste system.  And worse, they do so in the name of "peace" and "coexistence" profaning and bastardizing those noble ideals in the process.

Wulfram wrote...
You say that the people on the fringes are left behind, but what evidence do you have of this?  The Terminus systems have their problems, but they choose not to be part of Citadel space, and if the Council did not respect this then your charge of tyranny might not be misplaced.  As for the piracy and raids on human colonies in the Attican traverse, the blame fairly clearly falls on the Alliance's reckless policy of expansionism, which placed emphasis on placing their flag on as many worlds as possible rather than limiting themselves to what they secure.

What about Eden Prime?  Or Ekuna?  Or Tuchanka?  Or Watson?  What about Noveria and Illium where (as Dean so perfectly put it) "the Council does all those things they like to pretend are illegal?"  What about the volus, hanar, and elcor?  How long does an entire species have to defer to its "betters" before they can have a say in how they're governed?

Modifié par General User, 25 novembre 2011 - 03:31 .

[Barquiel]

No species is forced to open an embassy on the citadel...and every species can close its embassy if they're dissatisfied with the council (-> batarians). Nobody will declare war on them and the council races still trade with non-council races.

All species accepted the council rules when they've applied for membership of the citadel council...and violating the laws/rules of an organization is valid grounds for expulsion from that organization (-> quarians). I really don't see the problem here.

[Xilizhra]

Freedom is scary, and seldom comes cheap. But, oh, is it worth having.

Sometimes. And it depends on the freedom.

What about Eden Prime? Or Ekuna? Or Tuchanka? Or Watson? What about Noveria and Illium where (as Dean so perfectly put it) "the Council does all those things they like to pretend are illegal?" What about the volus, hanar, and elcor? How long does an entire species have to defer to its "betters" before they can have a say in how they're governed?

Eden Prime couldn't be handled without risk of war, Ekuna had the quarians try to steal it, Tuchanka was the krogan's own fault, and Watson was hit too quickly for any response.

[Wulfram]

General User wrote...

My criticism of the Council is that it is an onerous institution that uses brutal and heinous methods to aggrandize itself and enforce a racial caste system.  And worse, they do so in the name of "peace" and "coexistence" profaning and bastardizing those noble ideals in the process.

Well, I don't agree with your criticism then.

What about Eden Prime?

I'm not sure why the Alliance's refusal to adequately protect the colonies it has recklessly scattered over the galaxy is the Council's fault.

Or Ekuna?

Seems like it's a very prosperous Elcor world - at least, it's growing to a population of 200 million in less than a century indicates so.

Though the planet description is pretty nonsensical, as a lot of them are.

Or Tuchanka?

A mess, but the Council can't force the Krogan to sort themselves out.

Or Watson?

Not sure what you're referring to

What about Noveria and Illium where (as Dean so perfectly put it) "the Council does all those things they like to pretend are illegal?"

Is the Council supposed to annex planets which choose to place themselves outside its borders?

What about the volus, hanar, and elcor?  How long does an entire species have to defer to its "betters" before they can have a say in how they're governed?

They have a lot of say in how they're governed.  And Humanity's rapid ascent to the Council makes it clear that it requires only a minimal amount of political will to achieve a seat pretty much immediately.  And they can always leave, if they don't feel they're getting a good deal.

Modifié par Wulfram, 25 novembre 2011 - 03:47 .